pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Third Party Reselling or Distribution Sales  (Read 16470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 01, 2007, 18:39 »
0
Have you received this?  Apparently it was to be sent to exclusive only, what I'm not, but maybe it was just that they wanted to make it sound like if they've shared a secret information with everyone by mistake.

-=-=-=-

Partner Image Management Program
Third Party Reselling or Distribution Sales

Hello. This is a bulk email going out to all of our Exclusive contributors. We have something that we want to announce specifically to all of you first, before letting the rest of the communtiy in on it.

Some of you may have already seen this discussion, which announced our new Partner Image Management Program. If you missed the thread, here are all the details, along with the very first deal which is launching under the new program.

iStockphoto's Extended License program allows contributors to earn significantly higher one-time download royalties (often ten or twenty times the usual commission) in exchange for opening up the conditions under which content may be used by a client. iStock has created a set checklist of available options, each with it's own fixed costs and particular amendments to the standard license agreement higher print-run limits, inclusion in physical or electronic resale objects, that kind of thing. This program has been enormously successful for all involved. Our clients find the flexibility they need for their projects without having to shop elsewhere, and our contributors earn big commissions from single sales.

As iStock creates deeper relationships with globally-reaching companies, we're more and more able to negotiate another kind of option: where a strategic partner, usually with access to a new, untapped market, becomes an intermediary provider of content from iStock. We want to enable some of our more impressive partners to be able to resell or redistribute your files to their unique audiences. In return, you'll see more extended license sales, more often, and we'll be bringing huge new audiences here to iStock. These kinds of arrangements are often called 'White Label' deals the final content may not come in the iStock wrapper, but the production and compensation remains the same.

Why should we change the standard way we license images? As the online landscape evolves, we want to remain adaptable enough to always be the number one source for image content, and ensure that our contributors continue to get paid the commissions they need for the great work they bring us. The iStock White Label program is an open-ended addition to our Extended License program that's going to make us ready for whatever the future comes up with, as long as it stays in the best interests of our artists.

The specific terms of these deals will vary from partner to partner, but there are a few claims that we can make about all of them:

The vendor will always either use our standard end user license agreement, or a modified version which is at least as restrictive. Most of the time, your files will be redistributed under extremely limited usage restrictions, and we will never ask you to make them available in ways prohibited under the current extended license options. And one of the main criteria we look for in a partner is their ability to enforce how the images are used.

You will always get paid. Even if we arrange for a deal where a partner redistributes the content for their members' personal use, you will receive appropriate compensation.

We are very picky about who we make these arrangements with. We have a series of stringent credit and brand checks which must be met, and as mentioned, our partners must be able to adequately monitor EULA compliance. We will only enter into deals with companies that are worth all of our time: this is still all about increasing exposure and making you money.

This program will only be open to Exclusive iStock contributors. The content that enters these deals needs to be available from iStock and iStock only.

So what kind of arrangements are we talking about? In some cases, there will be a single, one-time extended license fee for the right to redistribute the files. This might be for a personal use license or a single sale of print-on-demand product such as fine art reproductions (giclees). In other cases, we may grant the Third-Party the right to resell our content in return for a revenue share to paid outside of our normal credit/royalty program. For example, when selling to mobile carriers, there would be a straight revenue share paid out quarterly to you based on reports we receive/audit from the vendor. This would constitute off-site reselling of iStock content. In these cases, you would receive no less than your regular canister rate for each sale. Each deal will be outlined in this section so you will see how/where your content is being sold.

Opting Out

Currently, Contributors choose to opt their entire portfolio into the Extended License program. The benefits of this consistency and simplicity are crucial to us from client relations, sales, and compliance enforcement standpoints. However, because these new third-party distribution licenses are significantly different from the existing Extended Licenses, we're adding a second opt-out tier. So you may be involved in the existing Extended License program, but opt out of this new one. We will post the details of each new arrangement as they're made here, so you'll be able to check in and re-evaluate your stance in each new case.

Our first deal:

A couple of weeks ago we sent out an email to about a hundred different iStockers whose images are being used in the first program of this kind. We want to share all the details with you now, so you'll know the kinds of things we're working on.

Microsoft Office now includes some of our content on their site, for use by Microsoft users within all the office applications under their personal-use license. In return, they will include an attribution page link to the content asset page so their customers may purchase a royalty free license if they wish to use the file for commercial purposes. We began our partnership with a simple text link on the clip art home page and have seen thousands of people every day coming to our site from that link alone. We can't begin to stress how profitable and important this deal will be for the entire community as we get our content indexed throughout the MS office site.

Here's the really cool part about this for you they also selected about 1,000 photos from us for which they are going to pay you/us for a NON-Commercial license. About 100 Exclusive members had at least 1 image chose. Here's how it worked:

1. Microsoft pays an extended license fee of $75 per photo, of which the contributor receives 35 50% (that's your normal canister royalty plus the 10% exclusive bonus on all extended licenses), for the right to redistribute the file as follows:

a. Size: 150 dpi up to 5 x 7 inches (so approximately 750 x 1050)

b. License: the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only. Microsoft is extremely diligent in ensuring compliance with this usage license, and we will be working alongside them to keep an eye on all the files involved (you can help out here as well, of course). You can read their license here; http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/tou.aspx?mode=print

2. Microsoft will include a link to our site so their customers can purchase a standard commercial licenses for the file. Site localization issues are dictating which markets will index the link. Right now, all US customers will receive a link back to the file. We are working with them to have that link extended globally by the fall.

This page will redirect the MS customer to the image-purchase page on our site, and we're working with them right now to get your referral ID included in the link. Regardless, we think its going to result in lots of sales of the image. They tell us that it is leading to about 12 sales per image on-line per month on average given our prices though, we expect to see that increase significantly.

We're excited about the possibilities here and hope you will be too.

Thanks!

The iStockphoto Team.


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2007, 18:45 »
0
I received the same and I'm not exclusive either?

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2007, 18:53 »
0
I got it to but I am exclusive video. Someone put this in beetter english. I wanna know it this will make me rich or not ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2007, 18:56 »
0
I got it too and I'm not exclusive.  Gee, yet another iStock screw up.  I can't say I'm surprised given their history.   ::)

« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2007, 18:58 »
0
I think they want to make non-exclusives jealous of exclusive's exclusive deals.  :D

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2007, 19:05 »
0
Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team

« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2007, 19:09 »
0
I love the name

Partner Image Management Program

or

PIMP

 :D

« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2007, 19:15 »
0
I love the name

Partner Image Management Program

or

PIMP

 :D

Classic!!  LOL   ;D

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2007, 20:51 »
0
Let's not overlook a HUGE point here--Istock is now giving clients the right to resell our images.  To me, that's another reason not to go exclusive through Istock.  I quote: 

"We want to enable some of our more impressive partners to be able to resell or redistribute your files to their unique audiences."

Istock has got to be kidding.  We spend a lot of energy safeguarding our intellectual property and they create a license that gives another entity the right to make money from selling that property.  EL or no EL, you'd be a fool to accept this proposition.  Even if your sales would not generate as much money as the EL, you are setting a dangerous precedent--you are allowing yourself to cede part of your copyright to the image.

Istock claims that the conditions under which the images may be resold are more stringent than the conditions under which Istock itself sells images.  So what?  How will they police these secondary entities--regardless of good credit or reputation ("We have a series of stringent credit and brand checks which must be met")?  I only need to mention "Enron" to demonstrate how little good credit and reputation mean when it comes to large companies.  Any company, no matter how ethical or well-intentioned, can be undermined by unethical management/ownership.

Don't be fooled.  This is not good for contributors.  It is merely a good way for Istock to sell more ELs and put less overall effort into marketing by relying on secondary entities for their marketing efforts.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 20:55 by Professorgb »

« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2007, 21:02 »
0
I don't normally jump in on these types of arguments but I have to agree with Professorgb on this one.  I did not get a warm and fuzzy feeling while reading their description of this deal.

« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2007, 22:13 »
0
I love the "Oops, we goofed!" message.  Sounds so believable.   And do you really think "Lots of people were fired as a result." ??

« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2007, 04:05 »
0
Linking into microsoft office though has the potential to increase sales dramatically.  Not sure how it works and this is the key but I am sure that everyone is sick of seeing that studit office artwork that features in so many powerpoint presentations.  Hopefully I will start seeing my photos there in stead.

I need to ready it closely as it looks like the microsoft deal redirects the buyer to istock????

« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2007, 04:31 »
0
I remember that Bill Gates owns Microsoft and Corbis (among others companies :) ).
Getty images owns Istockphoto... what a business... :D

« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2007, 05:29 »
0
So for 35-50% of $75, you give Microsoft or whoever the right to re-sell your image for whatever amount they want. Is that correct? With the marketing clout of MS, they should easily be able to sell each photo 1,000 times plus. For a couple of dollars each? I can see why this is a good deal for MS.

The photographer's cut just went down to 3%   :o

« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2007, 05:48 »
0
I remember that Bill Gates owns Microsoft and Corbis (among others companies :) ).
Getty images owns Istockphoto... what a business... :D
Does corbis have a microstock subsidary.  Unusual if they dont as you thought William II would be in it.

« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2007, 05:54 »
0
So for 35-50% of $75, you give Microsoft or whoever the right to re-sell your image for whatever amount they want. Is that correct? With the marketing clout of MS, they should easily be able to sell each photo 1,000 times plus. For a couple of dollars each? I can see why this is a good deal for MS.

The photographer's cut just went down to 3%   :o
My take is that microsoft will be a reseller and you will get a cut of each sale.  That is in theory only as users will get free use if for non commercial purposes (whos going to pay when you get it free from microsoft).  Looks like istock are giving more free images to bloggers etc (ie. non commerical).

Only applies to exclusives so I am not really to fussed.  Hopefully it will drive more traffic to the site.

« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2007, 10:38 »
0
"the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only."

What is meant by non-commercial in this deal? So if I want to use an image in a PPT or Word doc that will be shown to a few business colleagues, will I have to pay a standard licensing fee?

« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2007, 11:00 »
0
If the price is $75 for life time non commercial use for all microsoft customers i think it seams like an awfully bad deal.

« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2007, 11:28 »
0
Yeah ... I got this e-mail too.

I'm a native English speaker with a university degree in the subject, and I found it difficult to understand exactly what they were offering.

It seems to be one of those messages that seem to be telling you a lot, but when you look at them closely, don't say much at all ... the sort of thing so beloved by politicians.

For example, they write about contributors receiving "...  big commissions." What is a 'big commission?' They do give a concrete example further on ... "Microsoft pays an extended license fee of $75 per photo, of which the contributor receives 35 50%"

Okay, lets be generous and take the upper limit. 50% of $75 is $37.50.

I don't call $37.50 a big commission for:

a) Allowing Microsoft to use your image in its products however it wishes and ...

b)  All MS customers being able to use this image as they wish and ...

b) Allowing MS to sell it on as one of their 'products' (even if you do receive a cut) and ...

c)  You, as an independent photographer, not being allowed to sell any other RF image (even if it is not remotely related) anywhere else, through any other agency or means.

Bottom line ... ask yourself this question - "Who's going to get richer as a result of this?"



« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 14:44 by Bateleur »

« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2007, 11:34 »
0
I guess this isn't a problem since it is only available to exclusive istockers (or so i understand).  It would really throw a pickle into things if the image was purchased as exclusive on dreamstime and thus the photog had to remove it from the other sites.  Have third party / fourth party... selling the images it is sort of hard to get them out of circulation.. impossible I would say. 

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2007, 12:45 »
0
Exactly.  And, let's not overlook the pattern of behavior that has become all too familiar.  Istock rolls out a new "feature" that 1. doesn't apply to non-exclusives (good thing, this time), 2. apparently doesn't involve consultation with us, the suppliers, and 3. appears to be good only for Istock.

I don't mean to sound grouchy (I am grouchy, I admit--this cold is the pits), but this smacks of all the problems you see with big businesses.  Istock (and others, as well) tries to get us to buy into the "community" aspect of the business; we're all in this together.  If I want community, I'll come to microstock group, where people can and do express their opinions freely and where help is always at hand.  That's community.  Istock is part of my business.

Bottom line ... ask yourself this question - "Who's going to get richer as a result of this?"

« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2007, 13:10 »
0
Yeah ... I got this e-mail too.

I'm a native English speaker with a university degree in the subject, and I found it difficult to understand exactly what they were offering.

It seems to be one of those messages that seem to be telling you a lot, but when you look at them closely, don't say much at all ... the sort of thing so beloved by politicians.

For example, they write about contributors receiving "...  big commissions." What is a 'big commission?' They do give a concrete example further on ... "Microsoft pays an extended license fee of $75 per photo, of which the contributor receives 35 50%"

Okay, lets be generous and take the upper limit. 50% of $75 is $37.50.

I don't call $37.50 a big commission for:

a) Allowing Microsoft to use your image in it's products however it wishes and ...

b)  All MS customers being able to use this image as they wish and ...

b) Allowing MS to sell it on as one of their 'products' (even if you do receive a cut) and ...

c)  You, as an independent photographer, not being allowed to sell any other RF image (even if it is not remotely related) anywhere else, through any other agency or means.

Bottom line ... ask yourself this question - "Who's going to get richer as a result of this?"


Very well put.  You hit the nail on the head.

« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2007, 13:59 »
0
I don't call $37.50 a big commission for:

a) Allowing Microsoft to use your image in it's products however it wishes and ...

b)  All MS customers being able to use this image as they wish and ...

b) Allowing MS to sell it on as one of their 'products' (even if you do receive a cut) and ...

c)  You, as an independent photographer, not being allowed to sell any other RF image (even if it is not remotely related) anywhere else, through any other agency or means.
1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish. The terms of use have to be as restrictive or more restrictive than the regular license from iStock.
2)The program only applies to exclusives who already are prohibited from sell RF images anywhere else. So it doesn't apply to you, or any other non-exclusive (including me).
3) Since none of use have actually seen the details of the program, I think it is premature to judge the program.

« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2007, 15:15 »
0

1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish.


Okay ... I'll grant you that. It is a bit more restrictive.

What it says is, "... the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only ..."

In other words, an exclusive iStocker's image can be included in MS Office, as (for example) clip art or similar, and used by thousands if not millions of people around the world in PowerPoint presentations, office documents, invitations, company newsletters, company websites ... whatever, without the creator getting another cent for it.

Is $37.50 fair value for that?


Since none of use have actually seen the details of the program, I think it is premature to judge the program.


I'm not so much judging the program as iStock's extremely restrictive exclusivity demands and the peanuts they pay for it (though from the tone of their communications you'd think they were tipping out crocks of gold at the photographer's feet).

It seems to me to be fair enough if they want to take certain images as exclusive to them, like Dreamstime do. No problem. Every photographer can make her/his own decision on that.

But IS require total, absolute, unconditional exclusivity from a photographer. No other sales of RF images. Nowhere else. Full stop.

Is that reasonable?

I don't believe it is.

(P.S. I wonder how many IS 'exclusives' actually sell other images elsewhere, under other names? I know at least one person who does.)





« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2007, 20:23 »
0
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, this is very good for IS and MS, and it may even, to a certain degree short term, be positive for the exclusives at IS, since it ties the customers to that agency, but long term, it doesn't increase the market. It's an attempt to increase the market share of IS, which is legitimate enough, but I also have a feeling that contributors are left with an even smaller piece of the cake here.

« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2007, 21:20 »
0
(though from the tone of their communications you'd think they were tipping out crocks of gold at the photographer's feet).


LOL LOL  ;D  Ain't that the truth!!

« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2007, 23:34 »
0
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.
I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?

« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2007, 04:19 »
0

1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish.


Okay ... I'll grant you that. It is a bit more restrictive.

What it says is, "... the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only ..."

Ying Yang - your the lawyer, what is" personal, non commercial use".  Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this.  If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it.

What I would have prefered (if I was exclusive) is for MS to have a few examples in office and then a link to a mirror site of IS (ie.  looks like MS but is actually IS) where they then buy, even for personal use.  Now that would be great marketing!

« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2007, 13:04 »
0
...what is" personal, non commercial use".  Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this.  If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it...

You're right that no matter what the license actually ends up saying, there is no way to police how someone uses it in an internal company powerpoint presentation. The service is actually up and running if you want to check it out:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx

« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2007, 13:37 »
0
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.
I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?

That depends on how we define "personal, non-commercial use". I think we can forget about the "personal" thing. Very few people will acquire images for birthday invitations from MS. The customers are businesses and NGO's. Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide. Those are of course also the customers that are interesting to MS.

I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).

« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2007, 13:55 »
0
... Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide...when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).
All I was saying is that for internal presentations, most people don't buy the photos. They just "steal" them off the internet.
I also noticed the link from MS to istock, which is why I wasn't so quick to jump on the "this is horrible" band-wagon.

« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2007, 16:05 »
0
I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).
The link on that page is to the actual istock page. 

I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program.  ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.


« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2007, 22:17 »
0
The link on that page is to the actual istock page. 

I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program.  ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.
If you go to insert -> picture -> clipart in Microsoft Word and then do a search for construction you get the same results as you do when you click on the construction photo that is on the page that I linked to above. It's the same thing.

And no, I've never heard of the other stock sites that are listed.

« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2007, 06:07 »
0
Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.

AbleStock, Animation Factory, and Royalty Free Music are all part of the JupiterImages brand (which also owns Stockxpert).

I'm not sure about the others.

But I had only heard of AbleStock before (when I was browsing thru a design magazine).

grp_photo

« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2007, 12:12 »
0
Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team
If someone is trying to fool you in such a dumb way it's time to wake up!
what they are thinking how stupid we are?
One reason more to stay independent don't trust a bunch of arrogant liars!
"lots of people are fired" - lol time to fire istock!

vicu

« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2007, 16:29 »
0
Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team
If someone is trying to fool you in such a dumb way it's time to wake up!
what they are thinking how stupid we are?
One reason more to stay independent don't trust a bunch of arrogant liars!
"lots of people are fired" - lol time to fire istock!

Geesh. Obviously that was meant to be humorous.

FYI>
1. The exclusives WERE consulted before this became public.
2. The exclusives are given the ability to opt-out of this program.
3. The exclusives are not all brainless sheep drinking the istock kool-aid. Some very successful people are included in that group. The endless insults around here directed towards them are pretty juvenile. If you don't want to be exclusive FINE. If someone else does, why do you care? Why do you think you are entitled to judge what decisions other people make about their OWN business?

« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2007, 16:48 »
0
Quote from: vicu link=topic=1132.msg9325#msg9325
The exclusives are not all brainless sheep drinking the istock kool-aid.

Are you sure?  ;)

« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2007, 17:18 »
0
vicu,

I don't think anyone was insulting the exclusives here.  What we were discussing is IS's way to make it look like they were sharing a secret by accident with non-exclusives.  If someone should feel insulted, it was us non-exclusives, if they think we would believe in such accidental release.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

Lj

« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2007, 17:42 »
0
I got one of the emails about Microsoft wanting to buy one of my pics. I'm more than happy to give it a try - not for the initial money, but the hope that more people will be directed to my picture and portfolio (as buyers). The more of these partnership deals the better - bring 'em on :) I guess only time will tell though, hey?

YingYang - I really don't mind my pics being only available to istockphoto. This is a side hobby for me. I don't have a great deal of time and so keeping them at one place works out well for me.

Each to their own :)

« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2007, 18:08 »
0
I got one of the emails about Microsoft wanting to buy one of my pics.

Are you exclusive?

« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2007, 23:35 »
0
YingYang - I really don't mind my pics being only available to istockphoto. This is a side hobby for me. I don't have a great deal of time and so keeping them at one place works out well for me.

Each to their own :)
What gave you the impression that I disapproved of iStock's exclusivity program? I'm probably going to sign on when I hit 500 for no other reason than it is easier to upload to only one site. The extra bonus programs don't hurt either.

Lj

« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2007, 01:22 »
0
Sorry yingyang. Not sure what I thought I read there.

Yep, I'm exclusive to Istock.

« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2007, 01:58 »
0
vicu,

 ... I don't think anyone was insulting the exclusives here ...

Regards,
Adelaide

Hear hear!

It mystifies me why people who have gone exclusive with iStock feel that they are being insulted personally when someone criticises iStock's exclusivity programme.

Each individual makes their own decision with regard to marketing their work, and no one can criticise that.

The problem is that certain people (myself included) feel that iStock's exclusivity programme is far too restrictive and they are trying to corner the market by slightly questionable methods.

Is that insulting to anyone?

vicu

« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2007, 07:08 »
0
The problem is that certain people (myself included) feel that iStock's exclusivity programme is far too restrictive and they are trying to corner the market by slightly questionable methods.

Is that insulting to anyone?

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.

I guess it boils down to faith (or lack thereof) in the folks behind the scenes. I understand that is a hard concept for some to grasp when it comes to business ventures.

It's not so much that I (or others) take these comments personally. It's just that the wild and unfounded speculation takes conspiracy theory to a whole other realm. Every misstep is perceived as some diabolical plot. Somebody attaches an unsavory motive to something. Somebody else jumps in and says "YEAH, and I bet (insert new theory)" and it snowballs from there. Those poor misguided exclusives aren't alone in not being able to think for themselves. Jump on the crazy bandwagon, folks... there's room for all!

I guess after a while of reading these endless dramatic rants... I've grown weary.

Yes, the simple solution is to not read or respond to them, and generally that is the approach I take.

« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2007, 08:19 »
0
vicu,
I can understand your frustration level, however, like you, we all have our own opinions.  Believe me, I would love to go exclusive if for nothing else than to enjoy only having to upload to one site instead of 4.  Unfortunately, I have seen too many things go on at iStock over the past year that will prevent me from putting all of my eggs into one basket. There's no need in dredging up those demons here but I do feel they are valid for my decision.  Others feel differently and that is fine for them too.  To each his own.

Please keep something in mind though... the iStock forums are very restrictive and heavily censored, which is their right.  This forum here at microstockgroup is one of the few places where we are free to express our opinions about iStock, whether they are negative or otherwise, so I imagine you are going to see a lot more of the former here for that reason.  It's just the nature of the beast.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2007, 08:20 by pixelbrat »

« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2007, 09:06 »
0

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.


(Jaw drops ... huh?)

I cannot understand how you draw that conclusion. Where has anyone made that implication?

What a company does, and what it's independent suppliers do, are two entirely different things.

And where has the 'conspiracy' bit suddenly come from? It seems to me extraordinary that, if someone voices doubt about a company's business practices it then it become a 'conspiracy theory', complete with phrases like "crazy bandwagon".

I can't speak for others on this forum, but I believe that iStock's exclusivity requirements are unfairly restrictive, and I voice my doubts here because such discussion is rapidly squashed on iStock.

Also, I am not exactly enchanted (based on past experience) with iStock's treatment of photographers ... people who make up the very foundation of their business. Example ... the keywording fiasco of last year. I'm still trying to sort that one out with my iStock portfolio.

However, the doubts I voice are absolutely no reflection on iStock contributors, exclusive or otherwise.



« Last Edit: February 06, 2007, 09:09 by Bateleur »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
16535 Views
Last post December 03, 2009, 14:13
by WarrenPrice
3 Replies
6286 Views
Last post July 14, 2009, 15:40
by Talanis
4 Replies
4461 Views
Last post August 29, 2009, 05:29
by ThomasAmby
26 Replies
12526 Views
Last post January 18, 2011, 04:15
by leaf
15 Replies
7419 Views
Last post November 18, 2010, 12:13
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle